Hacker News Reader

Comment by code4tee | Hacker News Reader

A board doesn’t fire its CEO because they went on a few dates with someone a while back—even if that’s against company policy.

Getting the popcorn out to see how this unfolds...

View on HN

There's either a lot more to this particular story or the board wanted him gone for other reasons. cf. Mark Hurd. Anyone who believes the story as given should really think twice the next time someone offers to sell them a bridge. (I suppose ICOs are the appropriate item those days.)

BridgeCoin. Having a stake in tokens will entitle you to a profit share of tolls for this bridge that I definitely own.

Where can I sign up for being a reseller?

10nm chips are delayed again. AMD is back on desktop and server.

Those should be good enough reasons.

They had so many reasons to push him out. I feel like the board has been aware of the relationship for a while, but they got together one day to figure out which public reason to give for the ousting of Krzanich. And they chose this, which is probably the reason with the least negative impact on whatever is left of Krzanich' career. He may even get high-fives for it at his next gig.

At the end of the day, they had to get rid of him, not just for the insider trading, which is probably one of those "everyone does it" things in corporate America, but primarily because he seemed completely incapable of keeping Intel competitive against AMD's offensive over the next few years. Plus, under Krzanich's watch Intel lost its multi-year leadership in process technology.

Not just insider trading but getting caught so publicly is a bit problematic, especially if you're the SEC. I'm making a guess here but I wouldn't be surprised to here about a pending investigation into the incident that the board would rather distance Intel from before charges get filed.

The easier way for Krzanich was to let him resign because "he wanted to spend more time with his family".

Honestly, I'm not entirely clear why people are saying this was him being forced out. Unless a CEO decides to fight the board, it's easy enough to just say "hey, you're done so pick a graceful reason to resign". There are plenty of "time with the family" resignations out there with no need to dig up dirt.

I wonder if this reason was chosen due to various clauses in his contract. Perhaps it exempts him from a golden parachute, because it's misbehavior on his part? And even it he was also trading, this explanation doesn't put as much risk to the share price.

Yup, might be also a set up of some sort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com